The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1887-02-10


cure the defects. The law is an excel
lent one and we wish it had been extend.
ed to this county. The howl is raised
principally by Mr.. Murrsy's opponents.
who would seek any opportunity to
render him unpopular.
REPLIES, BUT DON'T PUBLISH.
The Baptist Courier is more expert in
! the management Of a controversy than in
displaying in q practical NAY those great
principles of fjustics and truth which Jig
: its proper mission to disseminate. In
Its controversy it has violated the great
Golden Rule, which is not Gully the
embodiment of one Of the highest COM
mandments Of Holy Writ, but an
{ acknowledged propriety in human con-
sduit by all upright men-"do unto others
as you would have them to do:unto you."
The Courier has persisted in attacking
! the IMrELLIGENcER and its Editor, snd
has refused to publish a single article
/. from the INTELLIGENcEI. although we
hare published its articles in full, snd
requested it to publish ours. It contents
itself by. criticising us without letting its
readers see ours defense. The remark of
the Courier, that a thing is not necessa-
;riiy true because the INTELIIGENCER
declares it to be true, may be said of
anything thatis asserted by any human
agency, but neither the Courier, nor any
{ person, can point to any utterance which
Sthe INTELLIGENcER has given that it did
y not believe to be true, and have clear
and substantial reasons for asserting.
We are not afraid to put the INTELl1.
sGliNCER's record for accuracy of state:
msnt against that of the Baptist Courier,
st issa religious newspaper, and we
spprehend that no such Inconsistency in
81 the INTELL1GENCER's utterances will
appear as the Courier has shown in dis-
{ cussing this very question. In its issue
Of January the fifth, the Courier says:
rs We did not approve of the methods by
which the victory at the polls was gained
in Anderson In its issue of January
"a 9th, the Courier says: "We are asked to
ipointlotlt che methods resorted to in the
late election, which we disappro7ed.
There was but a single method, really,
which We disapproved." In other words
II the Courier admits that it only disap-
/ proved one thing which was done in the
4 prohibition election, but in speaking of
sSthe matter is disapproved "the methods"
which embraced all of them. The Cbu-
risrs, exactness Of statement is to be COM
mended ana religious newspaper.
Again, the C5uier complains that the
articles ofthe INTELLIGENcER havo been
chiefly characterized by a series of
animadyersions upon one of its Editors,
mixed With an adroit effort to obscure
there's issue in controversy by unworthy
insinuations and direct charges. The
Courier has refused to publish our arti-
c!ss, and some of its readers may imagine
6 that ne have been personal in our side
of the discussion. In conveying this
impression the Courier has again, been
inexact, for in all We have said about the
b Cotlrier We have not made single refer
ence tothe Editors of the Courier, except
Ito, say that he did not believe OF practice
the doctrine of holiness, for he had got.
ten mad at the INTELL1aENcER's edieo.
rial of Q previous date. Now, will the
Cearier point out what the: aninadger.
siors by the INTELL1GENcER upon its
Editor have been2 If not, we must
: insist that it is again inexact in state.
ment of fact. We could not well have
been personal in our article, fo7 the
Co,rsers editorial department is sort of
double.barrel concern, which makes it
hard to locate sometimes. A letter
written in reply to its second article by
gentleman in Anderson, with which we
had no connection, was refused publica-
cation, but elected the fact that the
Editor it was after did not write the
articles involved in the controversy.
The next week the other Editor was in
Anderson, and, we understand, stated
that be was not in possession OF the cir.
!, cumstances connected with the Anderson
election at the time he wrote the first
article, and would not have written it if
she,had known them. We presume this
Yumor is incorrect, for he now says that
/ ihecannot Sec in what we have written
! any reason for recanting aught chat he
hassaid. We suppose that the Courier
would not fail to do justice to a commu.
nifty simply because it was not convinced
by: what paper in that community said,
while it was convinced by whatit learned
elsewhere. Therefore, we ask the ques-
ton whether the report of the utterance
of the said Editor while in Anderson is
correct or incorrect7
Again, the charge that the IsTEL11.
GENcER has insinuated anything against
the Courier or either of its Editors is
incorrect, as our readers will know. We
have said what we meant SO plainly that
no one could misunderstood it. Can the
Courier. say that it has not been personal
in its articles, and by its one.sided pub
LEGATIONS done the INrELL1aENcER 3
grave injustice in portions of the State
in which our paper does not circulate ? |
II may be that other peoples views are
as apt.to be right as the INrEL11aEN.
rpp,c int II ia MT 1ikoI,, tbot a ,o,,,,,, |